What is a metaphor? Metaphor - new meaning of old words and examples of use What is metaphor in

From simple comparison or personification and likening. In all cases there is a transfer of meaning from one word to another.

An indirect message in the form of a story or figurative expression using a comparison.
A figure of speech consisting of the use of words and expressions in a figurative sense based on some kind of analogy, similarity, comparison.

There are 4 “elements” in a metaphor:

Category or context
An object within a specific category,
The process by which this object performs a function,
Applications of this process to real situations, or intersections with them.

Expanded metaphor is a metaphor that is consistently implemented throughout a large fragment of a message or the entire message as a whole. Model: “The book hunger does not go away: products from the book market increasingly turn out to be stale - they have to be thrown away without even trying.”
Realized metaphor involves operating with a metaphorical expression without taking into account its figurative nature, that is, as if the metaphor had a direct meaning. The result of the implementation of a metaphor is often comic. Model: “I lost my temper and got on the bus.”

Theories

Among other tropes, metaphor occupies a central place, as it allows you to create capacious images based on vivid, unexpected associations. Metaphors can be based on the similarity of a variety of features of objects: color, shape, volume, purpose, position, etc.

According to the classification proposed by N.D. Arutyunova, metaphors are divided into

nominative, consisting of replacing one descriptive meaning with another and serving as a source of homonymy;
figurative metaphors that serve the development of figurative meanings and synonymous means of language;
cognitive metaphors that arise as a result of a shift in the compatibility of predicate words (transfer of meaning) and create polysemy;
generalizing metaphors (as the final result of a cognitive metaphor), erasing the boundaries between logical orders in the lexical meaning of a word and stimulating the emergence of logical polysemy.

Let's take a closer look at metaphors that help create images, or figurative ones.

In a broad sense, the term “image” means a reflection of the external world in the consciousness. In a work of art, images are the embodiment of the author’s thinking, his unique vision and a vivid image of the picture of the world. Creating a bright image is based on the use of similarities between two objects that are distant from each other, almost on a kind of contrast. For a comparison of objects or phenomena to be unexpected, they must be quite different from each other, and sometimes the similarity can be quite insignificant, unnoticeable, giving food for thought, or may be absent altogether.

The boundaries and structure of the image can be almost anything: the image can be conveyed by a word, phrase, sentence, super-phrase unity, can occupy an entire chapter or cover the composition of an entire novel.

However, there are other views on the classification of metaphors. For example, J. Lakoff and M. Johnson identify two types of metaphors considered in relation to time and space: ontological, that is, metaphors that allow you to see events, actions, emotions, ideas, etc. as a certain substance ( the mind is an entity, the mind is a fragile thing ), and oriented, or orientational, that is, metaphors that do not define one concept in terms of another, but organize the entire system of concepts in relation to each other ( happy is up, sad is down; conscious is up, unconscious is down ).

George Lakoff in his work “The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor” talks about the ways of creating metaphor and the composition of this means of artistic expression. A metaphor, according to Lakoff, is a prose or poetic expression where a word (or several words) that is a concept is used in an indirect sense to express a concept similar to the given one. Lakoff writes that in prose or poetic speech, metaphor lies outside of language, in thought, in the imagination, referring to Michael Reddy, his work “The Conduit Metaphor”, in which Reddy notes that metaphor lies in language itself, in everyday speech, and not only in poetry or prose. Reddy also states that “the speaker puts ideas (objects) into words and sends them to the listener, who extracts the ideas/objects from the words.” This idea is also reflected in the study by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson “Metaphors We Live By.” Metaphorical concepts are systemic, “metaphor is not limited to just the sphere of language, that is, the sphere of words: the processes of human thinking themselves are largely metaphorical. Metaphors as linguistic expressions become possible precisely because metaphors exist in the human conceptual system.”

Metaphor is often considered as one of the ways to accurately reflect reality artistically. However, I. R. Galperin says that “this concept of accuracy is very relative. It is the metaphor, which creates a concrete image of an abstract concept, that makes it possible for different interpretations of real messages.”

As soon as the metaphor was realized, isolated from a number of other linguistic phenomena and described, the question immediately arose about its dual essence: to be a means of language and a poetic figure. The first who contrasted poetic metaphor with linguistic metaphor was S. Bally, who showed the universal metaphorical nature of language.

Notes

Literature

Ankersmit F.R. History and tropology: the rise and fall of metaphor. / lane from English M. Kukartseva, E. Kolomoets, V. Kashaev - M.: Progress-Tradition, 2003. - 496 p.
Black M. Metaphor.
Gusev S. S. Science and metaphor. - L.: Leningrad State University, 1984.
Klyuev E. V. Rhetoric (Invention. Disposition. Elocution): Textbook for universities. - M.: PRIOR, 2001.
Kedrov K. A. Metametaphor. - M., 1999.
Lakoff D., Johnson M. Metaphors by which we live. - M.: Editorial URSS, 2004.
Moskvin V. P. Russian metaphor: Essay on semiotic theory. - 3rd ed. - M., 2007.
Tikhomirova E.A. Metaphor in political discourse: Methodology for research of political discourse. Issue 1. - Minsk, 1998.
Haverkamp A. Metapher. Die Ästhetik in der Rhetorik. - Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 2007.

Links

Nikonenko S. V. Analytical interpretation of metaphor (2003)

Rhetorical figures
Figures speeches
Trails

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

Synonyms:

25 February
Daniil Alexandrovich

See what “Metaphor” is in other dictionaries:

Metaphor- type of trope (see), use of the word in a figurative meaning; a phrase that characterizes a given phenomenon by transferring to it the characteristics inherent in another phenomenon (due to one or another similarity of the related phenomena) to a swarm of so. arr. his… … Literary encyclopedia

METAPHOR- (transfer, Greek) the most extensive form of trope, rhetoric. a figure representing the likening of one concept or representation to another, the transference of significant features or characteristics of the latter to it, its use in... ... Encyclopedia of Cultural Studies

METAPHOR- (Greek metaphora transfer, meta, and phero I carry). Allegorical expression; trope, which consists in the fact that the name of one concept is transferred to another based on the similarity between them. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language.... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

METAPHOR- (from the Greek metaphora - transfer, image) replacement of an ordinary expression with a figurative one (for example, a ship of the desert); metaphorically - in a figurative sense, figuratively. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. 2010. METAPHOR... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Metaphor- METAPHOR (Greek Μεταφορα transference) is a type of trope based on association by similarity or analogy. Thus, old age can be called the evening or autumn of life, since all these three concepts are associated by their common feature of approaching... Dictionary of literary terms

METAPHOR- METAPHOR, metaphorical (Greek metaphorá), type of trope, transfer of the properties of one object (phenomenon or aspect of being) to another, according to the principle of their similarity in some respect or contrast. Unlike comparison, where both terms are present... ... Literary encyclopedic dictionary

metaphor- METAPHOR (from the Greek metaphora transfer) is the central trope of language, a complex figurative semantic structure, representing a special way of cognition, carried out through the generation of images arising as a result of interaction... ... Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science

What is a metaphor?? This is a word form/phrase that is used in a non-specific sense. Another way to say it is hidden comparison.

This term was first introduced into literature by Aristotle. In his work “Poetics,” he spoke about its special meaning and argued that a text without metaphors is very dry and uninteresting.

Metaphors are most often used in literary texts. They give the works the greatest poetry and aesthetics. At A.S. Pushkin’s entire work is permeated with metaphors: “fountain of love”, “foam of waters”. Naturally, it is impossible to list all of them.

3 components of metaphor (elements of comparison):

That which is being compared (i.e. the subject of comparison).
What it is compared to (i.e. the image).
On what basis is it compared (i.e., sign).

Functions of metaphors

They are all varied, but let's look at the main ones.

Emotional-evaluative function . It is used when it is necessary to create expression in the text. This is done to create an emotional impact on the reader. Eg: " Why are you looking at me like a ram at a new gate?»
Evaluation function . It is used to create a certain association in the reader about the phenomenon. Eg: " wolf man», « cold heart" Thus, the wolfman metaphor is associated with a certain amount of negativity and anger.
Nominative function . With the help of this function, the language is replenished with new phraseological and lexical structures. For example: " the rain is drumming», « digest information».
Cognitive function. There's not much to explain here. This function helps to notice the main properties of an object.

Basic types of metaphors

Expanded metaphor . This type of metaphor unfolds over the course of a large piece of text. This can be either a long statement or several sentences.
Erased metaphor . A common type of metaphor that people do not notice in everyday communication (“ table leg», « sunstroke»…)
Harsh metaphor . This is a metaphor that connects concepts that are in principle incompatible with each other (example: “ saying filling»…)

Important!

Don't confuse metaphor with metonymy.

Sometimes they even say that metonymy is a type of metaphor. They are quite similar to each other, since they are based on hidden comparison and figurative meaning. But: the basis of metonymy is the transfer of properties of phenomena or objects by contiguity (“ eat a few cups of soup», « read Pushkin»).

And the basis of the metaphor is a hidden comparison (“ the sky in the palm of your hand», « iron heart"). Don't forget this.

How often do you meet people who can speak pure Russian, without repetitions and banalities, so as to hypnotize the interlocutor from the first words, and covering him with a stream of thought, carry him to the very end of the dialogue, not letting him miss the thread of the conversation and carefully observing what Is the text presented interesting to the listener?

In contact with

Often, experienced speakers, writers and people whose profession is one way or another connected with communication and literature know how to make such an impression on their interlocutor and find his weak points. They succeed in this thanks to many different tricks, including the use of literary speech - tropes. One of the paths that help make a statement brighter, a metaphor is juicier and more figurative. And we will try to understand what it is, and what its essence and significance are.

History of metaphor

I would like to write something about the origin of metaphor, but, fortunately, or, conversely, this is impossible. It originated, perhaps, together with language, fantasy, and with man in principle. She grew and developed with him.

So what is a metaphor in literature? If we consider this issue in the least detail, then we can say that this is a comparison, but if you dig deeper, the definition will turn out to be more extensive for you. Metaphor - figurative comparison one object with another based on some properties, this rule, by the way, the futurists tried to bypass and ignore as much as possible. The meaning of this path for them is the transfer of feelings, emotions and pictures in front of the reader’s gaze. There are countless examples of shocking futuristic metaphors in Mayakovsky’s poems, so it’s worth dwelling on:

Behind the sun of the streets, somewhere a useless, flabby moon was hobbling - the poet compares the moon with an old woman, weak and lonely;
The street silently poured flour.

The scream was sticking up from the throat.

Puffed up, stuck across the throat,

Plump taxis and bony carriages.

They walked in a hurry.

Consumption is flatter. - this poem describes a comparison where the street is likened to a sick person;

Along the pavement

my soul is worn out

crazy steps

they weave harsh phrases on their heels. - in the same poem, on the contrary, the man himself is likened to the street.

Having thrown the Milky Way with a gallows, take and hang me, a criminal. - an incredible sentence that clearly describes the meaning of how the writer sees the starry sky, namely, a comparison of the Milky Way with a rope for the gallows where the author should be hanged.

We have been learning about metaphor as a literary trope since Aristotle's teachings, who believed that it should be as close to the truth as possible and embody an undeniable similarity to the subject. The ancient philosopher was confident that art, including literature, should maximally convey the realism of the creator’s surrounding life; this is its essence and significance.

But, over time, opinions about the properties and functions of comparison changed noticeably and during the era of futurism, which was said a little above, the creators came to the conclusion that this complex comparison should be used to make the reader think about why the author wanted to say exactly so and what did he see as a comparison.

In general, this is a metaphor description of worldview the writer himself, a path whose essence is to convey the images swarming in the writer’s head and give the reader the opportunity to imagine the author’s point of view as clearly as possible.

Structure and principles of metaphor

Metaphor itself is a multifaceted and complex concept, in which everything is not as easy to sort out as it might seem at first glance, but everyone has the right to a chance, so we will try too.

Components of constructing a metaphor

Such a multifaceted comparison, reflecting the whole essence of the author’s inner world and his vision of life, cannot but be structured, according to at least some dogmas and the law of literary vocabulary. So let's consider semantic elements, which seem to be particles of a single whole canvas - metaphors.

Let's look at the components using the following metaphor as an example: “she was fading, losing her charm.”

Types of metaphor

There are two main types of metaphors - dry and expanded. The differences between them are obvious and immediately striking, so the question of how to find a metaphor should not arise, even for inexperienced readers.

Dry metaphor- a comparison, often already firmly established in everyday life, which is sometimes difficult to notice in a conversation, for example:

The eyeball is a metaphor whose meaning is obvious, and the comparison is in the word apple, due to the similarity of shapes;
The leg of a cabinet is a leg, a simile used because it is a support, just like human lower limbs, although the furniture obviously cannot move on it;
Golden words - naturally, words are not made of precious stone, but such a parallel is drawn due to the great value of what is spoken;
Burning foliage - in fact, the foliage does not burn, it’s just that its color is very reminiscent of a fire, by the way, the time of “burning foliage” is Pushkin’s favorite time, also one of the fans of using vivid metaphors in his poems.

An extended metaphor people often use literature. This comparison can last for a line, a sentence, a paragraph, a page, or a book.

So, we can conclude that our language is rich and diverse. Moreover, it is vast and large. A huge number of writers, poets and philosophers have been proving these simple truths for centuries. From the great mind of Aristotle to Pushkin, Lermontov, Tolstoy and, ultimately, Mayakovsky and Vysotsky. They all talked about the delights of native conversation. And we only need to remember that with a word you can both kill and heal. Know your native speech and find beauty in the ordinary, good luck.

Iron nerves, an icy heart and golden hands made everyone envy him with black envy. How about four metaphors in one sentence?

Good day, dear readers, if you have come to my site, it means you want to learn something new about how to write certain texts, promote your site or similar information. Today we will talk about what a metaphor is, we will learn how to create our own and understand how it strengthens the text. I will also show examples from the literature.

What is it? A metaphor is a word or combination of words that is used figuratively. The purpose of using a metaphor is to compare an unnamed name, property or meaning of an object with another object, property or meaning, based on similar characteristics. It's not as complicated as it sounds, so don't be afraid.

This linguistic device is often confused with comparison, but their main difference is that in comparison it is immediately clear what you are comparing and with what, for example, “he was as beautiful as a flower.” An example of a metaphor would be simply the expression “the purple of the rose.” Everyone understands that the rose is not purple, but has a vibrant color similar to a distant shade of purple.

great and mighty

Today in the modern Russian literary language there is a huge number of various means designed to enhance the effect. Such means are called artistic devices and are used in the following styles of speech:

In fiction, expressive phrases are used to dilute dry text. In journalistic - to enhance the effect and influence on the reader, in order to force him to do something or at least think about the meaning of what he read.

Learning to create

In order for you to create a great metaphor, you need to understand one rule: it must be understandable to the masses. That is, it must be understood. Of course, some people really like to think and guess what the author really wanted to say, but this is a small percentage of readers. The majority want to recognize something familiar in the text and associate it with themselves.

Having understood the first rule, it is also worth remembering that in modern language there is a huge number of clichés (very hackneyed phrases). They can be very hurtful to the reader's eyes. Judge for yourself how tired we are of such phrases as “love is evil” and “buy cheap.” The first is understandable, but the second is a forced cliché that is needed to optimize a website.

Often on such sites it is not possible to buy anything inexpensively. As for cliché metaphors, they have a doubly repulsive effect. For example, “your eyes are the ocean” is a hundred-year-old metaphor. It will not cause any effect in the reader other than disgust. Just remember that you cannot use expressions that are far from the reader and those that he is already pretty tired of. Try to find this fine line and your work will immediately become more readable and interesting.

Classification

Today there are several types of metaphors:

Sharp (brings together concepts that are distant in meaning);
Expanded (combines several concepts and is embodied in different parts of the text, for example, “the automobile market has fallen: products from the car market are increasingly turning out to be stale, you don’t even want to taste them”);
Erased (a metaphor used in everyday life and already perceived as it should be, for example, a door handle);
Metaphor-formula (close to an erased one, but differs in that established expressions act as phraseological units - indestructible combinations of words, for example, heart of gold).

Examples from literature

Our great ancestors left us a huge store of knowledge encrypted in literature, and only those who can understand all the author’s ideas are able to access this knowledge. You should start searching for them by learning to understand the artistic means that were used in literature. This is also necessary to truly enjoy the works, and not to read and forget.

Since we are talking about metaphors today, let’s try to understand them. For example, in Sergei Yesenin’s poem “I don’t regret, I don’t call, I don’t cry,” the metaphor “...withering away in gold...” implies closeness to old age. If you have thought of this yourself, then congratulations, you can already identify the metaphor, and most importantly, understand its meaning. But if you learn and understand this language device, it is not at all necessary that you will be able to create them yourself. This requires, at a minimum, training, and even better, a sharp mind. By the way, “sharp mind” is also a metaphor for unconventional thinking.

It turns out that in everyday communication style also implies the presence of linguistic means, but metaphor is much less common here than, for example, comparisons or epithets.

Thank you for reading to the very end, leave your comment and get the opportunity to download a unique book that will help you become a real author.

The concept of “metaphor” and approaches to its study

Definition of metaphor

The most common definition of metaphor in linguistics is the following: “Metaphor (metaphorical model) is the likening of one phenomenon to another based on the semantic proximity of states, properties, actions that characterize these phenomena, as a result of which words (phrases, sentences) intended to denote certain objects ( situations) of reality are used to name other objects (situations) on the basis of the conditional identity of the predicative features attributed to them” [Glazunova, 2000, p. 177-178].

When using a metaphor, two thoughts (two concepts) about different things interact with each other within one word or expression, the meaning of which is the result of this interaction.

Four components are involved in the formation and, accordingly, the analysis of metaphor:

two categories of objects;
properties of two categories;

Metaphor selects the attributes of one class of objects and applies them to another class or individual - the actual subject of the metaphor. Interaction with two different classes of objects and their properties creates the main feature of metaphor - its duality.

A living metaphor at the moment of its generation and comprehension presupposes the interaction of two denotations, that which is compared with something and that with which it is compared, and the name of the latter becomes the name of the former, acquiring a metaphorical meaning. Language metaphor is an important factor in the development of language. It is precisely this that underlies many linguistic processes, for example, the development of synonymous means, the emergence of new meanings and their nuances, the creation of polysemy, and the development of emotionally expressive vocabulary. Among other things, metaphor allows you to verbalize ideas relating to the inner world of a person.

R. Hoffman wrote: “Metaphor can be used as a tool of description and explanation in any field: in psychotherapeutic conversations and in conversations between airline pilots, in ritual dances and in programming language, in artistic education and in quantum mechanics. Metaphor, wherever we encounter it, always enriches the understanding of human actions, knowledge and language."

The English scientist E. Ortony identified three main reasons for using metaphor in everyday life:

They help us speak concisely.
They make our speech bright.
They allow one to express the inexpressible [Ortony, 1990, p. 215].

We often use metaphors because they are quick, concise, precise and understandable to everyone.

Classification of metaphors

According to N.D. Arutyunova, the following types of linguistic metaphor can be distinguished:

1) nominative metaphor (name transfer), which consists of replacing one meaning with another;

2) figurative metaphor, which arises as a result of the transition of an identifying meaning into a predicate one and serves the development of figurative meanings and synonymous means of language;

3) cognitive a metaphor that arises as a result of a shift in the compatibility of predicative words and creates polysemy;

4) generalizing a metaphor that erases the boundaries between logical orders in the lexical meaning of a word and stimulates the emergence of logical polysemy [Arutyunova, 1998, p. 366].

Typology of metaphors M.V. Nikitin is based on the fact that the similarity of features in denotations, which serve as the basis for the transfer of a name and the corresponding metaphorical restructuring of the direct meaning, can be of a different nature. If the similarity is contained in the analogously compared things themselves, then we are dealing with ontological metaphor: straight And structural. When straight metaphors, the signs have the same physical nature (“bear”: 1. type of animal - clumsy 2. clumsy person), and in the case structural- there is a resemblance structural character, that is, signs play a structural role in the nature of two denotations (Cf.: eating, receiving guests, receiving information). In both cases, the similarity of characteristics is present before the comparison and is only revealed in it. When signs of similarity are found in the entities being compared, but are ontologically different both in physical nature and in structural role, and the moment of similarity arises only during perception, we are talking about synesthetic And emotive-evaluative metaphors. The similarity here is generated not by the ontology of things, but by the mechanisms of information processing.

Similarities ontological(direct and structural) metaphors with synesthetic lies in the fact that in each case, each time in its own way, they strive, on the basis of some similarity, to designate and describe the object of comparison according to the own characteristics of this object. They are opposed emotive-evaluative a metaphor that involves switching from the cognitive plane of consciousness to the pragmatic one [Nikitin, 2001, pp. 37-38].

J. Lakoff and M. Johnson distinguish two types of metaphors: ontological, that is, metaphors that allow you to see events, actions, emotions, ideas, etc. as a certain substance (the mind is an entity, the mind is a fragile thing), and oriented, or orientation, that is, metaphors that do not define one concept in terms of another, but organize the entire system of concepts in relation to each other (happy is up, sad is down; conscious is up, unconscious is down).

Grammar can also be a means of conveying metaphorical meaning. In linguistics, a grammatical metaphor is understood as the intentional transfer of categorical features of one grammatical category into the scope of another grammatical category in order to create a new additional meaning, which is no longer necessarily grammatical [Maslennikova, 2006, p. 23].

There are three ways of grammatical metaphorization:

1) Contrast between the grammatical meaning of the form and the context;

2) The contrast between the grammatical meaning of the form and its lexical content;

3) The contrast between the vocabulary and extra-linguistic situations.

When comparing lexical and grammatical metaphors, the following differences are noted: metaphorization in grammar is limited to a small number of oppositions and a closed type of grammatical system; in addition, grammatical metaphor is characterized by unidirectionality, and not vice versa, although the opposite cases are not excluded.

Approaches to the study of metaphor

The attitude towards metaphor since its inception has been ambiguous. Metaphor was examined from different points of view, denied, and assigned secondary roles. Plato did not approve of the use of figurative means of language; Cicero perceived metaphor as an unnecessary invention. For a long time this negative attitude towards metaphor prevailed.

Aristotle started the study of metaphor. He considered metaphorical transfers as a significant means of language, which had a positive effect on the listener and strengthened the argument. Aristotle designated the basis of metaphorical transfer as the similarity of two objects and considered it the main means of cognition.

Metaphors, according to F. Nietzsche, are the most effective, natural, accurate and simple means of language [Nietzsche, 1990, p. 390].

In classical rhetoric, metaphor was presented mainly as a deviation from the norm - the transfer of the name of one object to another. The purpose of this transfer is either to fill the absence in the system of one language of an equivalent for a lexical unit of another language (lexical gap), or to somehow “decorate” speech.

Later, the problem of metaphor moved from rhetoric to linguistics. Thus arose comparative concept of metaphor, in which the metaphor was positioned as a pictorial rethinking of the usual name. The metaphor was presented as a hidden comparison. Comparison theory stated that a metaphorical utterance involves a comparison between two or more objects.

The traditional (comparative) point of view on metaphor identified only a few approaches to the way metaphor is formed and limited the use of the term “metaphor” to only some of the cases that arose. This forces us to consider metaphor only as a linguistic device, as a result of replacing words or contextual shifts, while the basis of metaphor is the borrowing of ideas.

According to M. Black, there are two reasons for the use of metaphorical words: the author resorts to metaphor when it is impossible to find a direct equivalent of the metaphorical meaning or when using a metaphorical construction for purely stylistic purposes. Metaphorical transfer, in his opinion, combines the uniqueness of semantic meaning and stylistic potential [Black, 1990, p. 156].

D. Davidson put forward the theory that metaphor has only its direct dictionary meaning. And it is the personality of the interpreter that determines the metaphorical meaning of the image [Davidson, 1990, p. 174].

One of the popular theories of metaphor is the cognitive theory of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson. In their opinion, metaphorization is based on the interaction of two knowledge structures: the “source” structure and the “target” structure. The source domain in cognitive theory represents a person's experience. The goal area is less specific knowledge, “knowledge by definition.” This approach turned out to be fruitful, since it made it possible to define metaphor not only in terms of a linguistic phenomenon, but also as a mental phenomenon.

Cognitive approach to the study of metaphor

At the end of the 70s, linguistics showed interest in the cognitive structures that form the basis of linguistic competence and speech implementation. A new direction has emerged - cognitive linguistics, which is a new approach to the study of natural language, in which language is understood as a tool for organizing, processing and transmitting information and as a type of human cognitive ability (along with other cognitive abilities - memory, attention, thinking, perception). Semantics occupies the main place in this area, the main object of its study is meaning. One of the main theoretical problems is the relationship between semantics and reality. The main interest of cognitive linguists is concentrated in such phenomena as prototypicality, regular polysemy, cognitive models and metaphor as a universal cognitive device. The theory of metaphor has occupied a special place in cognitive linguistics. Metaphor in modern linguistics is considered as a basic mental operation, as a way of cognition, categorization, conceptualization, evaluation and explanation of the world. The phenomenon of metaphorical thinking was paid attention to by such scientists, researchers and writers as D. Vico, F. Nietzsche, A. Richards, H. Ortega y Gasset, E. McCormack, P. Ricoeur, E. Cassirer, M. Black, M Erickson and others [Budaev, 2007, p.16].

In metaphorical reconceptualization, during the cognitive process, the speaker explores parts of his long-term memory, discovers two referents (often logically incompatible), establishes a meaningful relationship between them, and thereby creates a metaphor. A meaningful relationship is established based on the detection of a number of common features between two referents. These features are reflected in the structure of lexical meaning.

Since the lexical meaning of a word is heterogeneous, it is of interest to analyze which part of the meaning is subject to metaphorical rethinking, what semantic features are the basis for the formation of a new, metaphorical meaning. In the structure of the lexical meaning of a word, from the point of view of the cognitive aspect, two parts can be distinguished: intension and implication. An intension is a set of semantic features (semes) that a denotation must have in order to be classified as a given class. An implical is also a set of semantic features, but a set associatively formed from an intension. When metaphorically rethinking words, first of all, implicational features (not excluding intensional ones) are involved in the restructuring of the semantics of the word. Some part of these features forms the content of the differential part of the derived metaphorical meaning [Nikitin, 2001, p. 36].

A word does not have a finite list of meanings, but there is a certain initial meaning of a semantic derivation model that gave rise to a certain number of meanings that can give rise to a non-finite number of produced meanings. However, different meanings have different chances of coming true. There are two points that determine the possibility of realizing one or another meaning by a given word. These are: 1. the need for the nomination of the corresponding concept and 2. the strength, brightness of the associative connection of two concepts (the original and the figuratively designated). The combination of these factors increases the chance of realizing a derived meaning. It is possible to objectively judge the metaphorical potential of words only on the basis of recorded cases of their figurative use on the basis of analogical similarity, taking into account metaphors. Ultimately, it all comes down to a comparison of cognitively equivalent concepts according to the way they are expressed, direct or figurative [Nikitin, 2001, pp. 43-44].

A special place in the development of cognitive theory is given to J. Lakoff and M. Johnson. It is in it that metaphor as an object of research is translated into a cognitive-logical paradigm and studied from the point of view of its connection with deep cognitive structures and the process of categorization of the world; they developed a theory that introduced some systematicity into the description of the cognitive mechanism of metaphor and provided a large number of examples confirming this theory. The key idea of J. Lakoff and M. Johnson is that metaphors as linguistic expressions become possible due to the fact that the human conceptual system is metaphorical at its core. That is, understanding and experiencing phenomena of one kind in terms of phenomena of another kind is a fundamental property of our thinking. “Metaphor permeates our entire daily life and manifests itself not only in language, but also in thinking and action. Our everyday conceptual system, within the framework of which we think and act, is metaphorical in its very essence” [Lakoff, 1990, p. 387]. Developing his concept, J. Lakoff proceeded from the fact that many statements regarding metaphor turn out to be false:

Any subject can be understood literally, without metaphor.
The most common use of metaphor is in poetry.
Metaphors are only linguistic expressions.
Metaphorical expressions are inherently untrue.
Only literal language can be truthful [Lakoff, 1990, p. 390].

Adhering to the view of J. Lakoff on the cognitive theory of metaphor, its main idea can be expressed as follows: the basis of the process of metaphorization is the interaction of two conceptual domains - the source domain and the target domain. As a result of metaphorical projection (metaphorical mapping) from the source sphere to the target sphere, the elements of the source sphere formed as a result of the experience of human interaction with the outside world structure the less understandable target sphere, which constitutes the essence of the cognitive potential of metaphor. The source sphere is more specific knowledge, easier to transfer from one person to another, and is based directly on the experience of a person’s interaction with reality, while the target sphere is less specific, less definite knowledge. The basic source of knowledge that makes up conceptual domains is the experience of human interaction with the outside world. Stable correspondences between the source sphere and the target sphere, fixed in the linguistic and cultural tradition of society, were called “conceptual metaphors”.

Following J. Lakoff, E. Budaev notes that “the position that the subject is inclined to react not to reality, but rather to his own cognitive representations of reality, leads to the conclusion that human behavior is directly determined not so much by objective reality as by the system of representation person. It follows from this that the conclusions that we draw on the basis of metaphorical thinking can form the basis for action” [Budaev, 2007, p. 19].

The source domain is our physical experience, but it can also imply general cultural values. The target area is what we are currently focusing our attention on, what we are trying to understand.

A famous example by J. Lakoff is the metaphor ARGUMENT IS WAR, which represents the understanding of a dispute as a war. In everyday language, this metaphor is realized in a number of statements in which the dispute is denoted in military terms:

Your claims are indefensible.

Your assertions do not stand up to scrutiny (lit. indefensible).

Dispute and war are phenomena of a different order, in each of which different actions are performed. A dispute is an oral exchange of remarks, a war is a conflict involving the use of weapons. But we compare the dispute with a war, using its terminology. It is important to note that we are not simply using military terms in an argument. We imagine the person with whom we argue as an opponent; we win or lose the argument. We move forward or retreat, we have a certain plan (strategy). An argument is a verbal battle. “Thus the concept is ordered metaphorically, the corresponding activity is ordered metaphorically, and, consequently, language is also ordered metaphorically.” But if, as J. Lakoff suggests, we try to imagine another culture in which disputes are interpreted not in terms of war, but, for example, in terms of dance, then representatives of that culture will view disputes differently, conduct them differently and talk about them differently way. Thus, J. Lakoff illustrates the main idea: “The essence of metaphor is the comprehension and experience of phenomena of one kind in terms of phenomena of another kind.”

We reason about the dispute in this way because we think this way. Metaphorical transfer is not limited by language barriers and can be carried out not only at the verbal, but also at the associative-figurative level. As a result, the most important conclusion is revealed: “Metaphor is not limited to just the sphere of language, that is, the sphere of words: the processes of human thinking themselves are largely metaphorical” [Lakoff, 1990, p. 23].

In the typology of American researchers, conceptual metaphors can be divided into two more types: orientation metaphors And ontological metaphors.

In ontological metaphors, we order one concept in terms of another, while orientation metaphors reflect oppositions in which our experience of spatial orientation in the world is reflected and recorded (Happy is up, sad is down). In other words, space turns out to be one of the basic concepts for the formation and designation of other, non-spatial experience. In his work “Metaphors We Live By,” J. Lakoff gives examples of modeling various types of experience as spatial concepts that form the basis of orientation metaphors:

HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN

The physical basis of the HAPPY IS UP, SAD IS DOWN metaphor is the idea that, being in a sad state, a person lowers his head, while, experiencing positive emotions, a person straightens and raises his head.

I'm feeling up. He's really low these days.

That boosted my spirits I'm feeling down.

Thinking about her always gives me a lift. My spirits sank.

Based on linguistic material, Lakoff and Johnson draw appropriate conclusions about the foundations, coherence and systematicity of metaphorical concepts:

Most of our fundamental concepts are organized in terms of one or more orientational metaphors.
Each spatial metaphor has an internal consistency.
Various orientational metaphors are embraced by a common system that harmonizes them with each other.
Orientation metaphors are rooted in physical and cultural experience, and they are not used randomly.
Metaphors can be based on various physical and social phenomena.
In some cases, orientation in space is such an essential part of the concept that it is difficult for us to imagine any other metaphor that could give order to the concept.
So-called purely intellectual concepts are often, and perhaps always, based on metaphors that have a physical and/or cultural basis [Lakoff, 2004, pp. 30-36].

Ontological metaphors divide abstract entities into certain categories, outlining their boundaries in space, or personify them. “Just as the data of human experience in spatial orientation give rise to orientational metaphors, the data of our experience associated with physical objects form the basis for a colossal variety of ontological metaphors, that is, ways of interpreting events, actions, emotions, ideas, etc. as objects and substances” [Lakoff, 2004, p. 250]. (We are working towards peace. The ugly side of his personality comes out under pressure. I can't keep up with the pace of modern life.)

J. Lakoff also identifies a communication channel metaphor (conduit metaphor). Its essence is as follows: the speaker puts ideas (objects) into words (containers) and sends them (via a communication channel - conduit) to the listener, who extracts ideas (objects) from words (containers).

The language we use, when we talk about language itself, is structurally ordered according to the following compound metaphor:

IDEAS (OR MEANINGS) ARE OBJECTS.

LANGUAGE EXPRESSIONS ARE THE ESSENCE OF THE CONTAINER.

COMMUNICATION IS TRANSMISSION (DEPARTMENT).

From the first position of this metaphor - MEANINGS ARE OBJECTS - it follows, in particular, that meanings exist independently of people and contexts of use.

From the second component of the COMMUNICATION CHANNEL metaphor - LANGUAGE EXPRESSIONS ARE CONTAINERS FOR MEANINGS - it follows that words and phrases have meaning in themselves - regardless of the context or the speaker. An example of the figurative scheme IDEAS – THESE OBJECTS are the following expressions:

It's hard to get an idea across to him.

It is difficult for him to explain (any) thought.

I gave you that idea.

I gave you this idea.

The theory proposed by J. Lakoff and M. Johnson has received wide recognition in science; it is actively developing in many schools and directions [Lakoff, 2008, p. 65].

M. Johnson uses the term figurative diagram(or image schema) for such a schematic structure around which our experience is organized. His concept of figurative schema goes back to Kant's concept of schema, but differs from it. Johnson defines figurative schema as follows: “Imaginal schema is the repeating dynamic pattern of our perceptual processes and our motor programs that gives coherence and structure to our experience” [Chenki, 2002, p. 350]. Johnson does not claim that it is possible to list all the figurative schemas that are used in everyday experience, but he does offer a partial list of twenty-seven figurative schemas to give an idea of their diversity. In general, figurative diagrams are characterized by the following qualities:

not propositional;
are not associated with only one form of perception;
are part of our experience at the levels of perception, imagery and structure of events;
ensures the coherence of human experience through different types of cognition, from the level of the individual to the level of social structures;
are Gestalt structures (exist as coherent, significant wholes in our experience and cognition) [Chenki, 2002, p. 354].

A figurative or topological diagram is a typical model (pattern) applicable to the description of many linguistic units at once. However, not every concept can be “assembled” from such primary semantic schemes, because each of them appeals to the simplest forms or movements of the human body, which are familiar and understandable to the native speaker and which he can therefore easily transfer to the surrounding reality. What happens is an anthropocentric “binding” of the main “building blocks”, fragments of semantic representation. It is based on Lakoff’s idea, which is called embodiment (incarnation in the human body) and returns linguistics to the times of local theories: what is recognized as primary is not just what is associated with a person, but only what is associated with his spatial sensations and motor reactions. There is also a set of abstract concepts that can be reduced to image schemas: “quantity”, “time”, “space”, “causation”, etc.; these concepts, in turn, can underlie other, more abstract or, conversely, substantive ones, but in all cases, due to the fact that the very first, initial semantization of them is based on the transition from the concrete to the abstract, and moreover, from space to everything else, spatial-motor meanings are always primary. It is this direct connection with the simplest spatial “primitives” that prompts us to translate the term image schema not as a figurative diagram, but as a topological diagram. This translation, firstly, emphasizes that figurative schemes underlie all cognitive “pictures”, and secondly, it emphasizes the localist idea [Rakhilina, 2000, p.6].

Summarizing the above, we can draw the following conclusions about the interpretation of metaphor in cognitive linguistics. Metaphor is not just a linguistic device that allows you to decorate speech and make an image more understandable, it is a form of thinking. According to the cognitive approach to the nature of human thinking, a person's conceptual system is determined by his physical experience. And thinking is figurative, that is, to represent concepts that are not determined by experience, a person uses comparison and metaphor. This ability of a person to think figuratively determines the possibility of abstract thinking.

Bibliography

Glazunova O.I. The logic of metaphorical transformations. – St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology // State University, 2002. – P. 177-178.
Hoffman R.R. What could reaction-time studies be telling us about metaphor comprehension? // Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 1987. – Pp. 152.
Ortoni E. The role of similarity in simile and metaphor // Theory of metaphor / Rep. ed. N.D. Arutyunova. – M.: Publishing house “Progress”, 1990. – P. 215.
Arutyunova N.D. Language and the human world. – M.: Languages of Russian Culture, 1998. – P. 366.
Nikitin M.B. Metaphorical potential of the word and its implementation // Problem of the theory of European languages / Rep. ed. V.M. Arinshtein, N.A. Abieva, L.B. Kopchuk. – St. Petersburg: Trigon Publishing House, 2001. – P. 37-38.
Maslennikova A.A. Features of grammatical metaphor // Metaphors of language and metaphors in language / A.I. Varshavskaya, A.A. Maslennikova, E.S. Petrova and others / Ed. A.V. Zelenshchikova, A.A. Maslennikova. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg State University, 2006. – P. 23.
Nietzsche F. Beyond good and evil. Book 2. – Italian-Soviet publishing house SIRIN, 1990. – P. 390.
Black M. Metaphor // Theory of metaphor / Rep. ed. N.D. Arutyunova. – M.: Publishing house “Progress”, 1990. – P. 156.
Davidson D. What do metaphors mean // Theory of metaphor / Rep. ed. N.D. Arutyunova. – M.: Publishing house “Progress”, 1990. – P.174.
Budaev E.V. Formation of the cognitive theory of metaphor // Linguoculturology. – 2007. – No. 1. – P. 16.
Nikitin M.V. Concept and metaphor // Problem of the theory of European languages / Rep. ed. V.M. Arinshtein, N.A. Abieva, L.B. Kopchuk. – St. Petersburg: Trigon Publishing House, 2001. – P.36.
Nikitin M.B. Metaphorical potential of the word and its implementation // Problem of the theory of European languages / Rep. ed. V.M. Arinshtein, N.A. Abieva, L.B. Kopchuk. – St. Petersburg: Trigon Publishing House, 2001. – P. 43-44.
Lakoff J. Metaphors by which we live. – M.: Publishing house LKI, 1990. – P. 387.
Lakoff J. Metaphors by which we live. – M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. – P. 390.
Lakoff G. The contemporary theory of metaphor // Metaphor and thought / Ed. By A. Ortony. –Cambridge, 1993. – Pp. 245.
Budaev E.V. Formation of the cognitive theory of metaphor // Linguoculturology. – 2007. – No. 1. – P. 19.
Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. – Chicago, 1980. – Pp. 23.
Lakoff J. Metaphors by which we live. – M.: Publishing house LKI, 1990. – P. 23.
Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things: What the categories of language tell us about thinking. – M.: Languages of Slavic culture, 2004. – P. 30 -36.
Lakoff J. Women, fire and dangerous things: What the categories of language tell us about thinking. – M.: Languages of Slavic Culture, 2004. – P. 250.
Lakoff J. Metaphors by which we live. – M.: Publishing house LKI, 2008. – P. 65.
Chenki A. Semantics in cognitive linguistics // Modern American linguistics: fundamental directions / Rep. ed. A.A. Kibrik, I.M. Kobozeva, I.A. Sekerina. – M.: Publishing house “Editorial”, 2002. – P. 350.
Chenki A. Semantics in cognitive linguistics // Modern American linguistics: fundamental directions / Rep. ed. A.A. Kibrik, I.M. Kobozeva, I.A. Sekerina. – M.: Publishing house “Editorial”, 2002. – P. 354.
Rakhilina E.V. On trends in the development of cognitive semantics // Series of literature and language, 2000. – No. 3. – P. 6.